|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Magistrates Court of Solomon Islands |
IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS
In the Criminal Jurisdiction
Criminal case No: 194 of 2023
BETWEEN:
REX
V
AND:
NANCY SAU
PPD: PC Moffatt Tei
Defence: Ms Delilah Kukura
Date of No Case to Answer Submissions: 30th of May 2023
Date of ruling: 1st of June 2023
RULING ON NO CASE TO ANSWER
Introduction
Back-ground/ allegation
The law on no case to answer
If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall forthwith acquit the accused[1].
The test is not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty[2].
It is important to note that the evidence that is to be considered for the purposes of a no case submission must be capable of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. It is not enough if it is merely capable of proving the possibility of guilt. It must be capable, if accepted, of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As the High Court of Australia said in Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; [1990] LRC (Crim) 416 at 423 [3]:
[T]o put the matter in more usual terms, a verdict of not guilty may be directed only if there is a defect in the evidence such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty[4].'
It follows that it must be such as to permit proof of guilt without inappropriate speculation. Whether it is right to take the evidence at its highest or most favourable to the Crown is, of course, ultimately a matter for the tribunal of fact. But, in order to establish a case to answer, there must be some evidence capable of establishing, whether directly or inferentially, every element of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt[5].
1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case[6].
(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence[7].
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case[8].
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability, or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury[9].'
10. While Justice Ward did not specifically refer to the case of Galbright, the test highlighted above was applied in the case of R v Lutu which was seen to have set the relevant test in this jurisdiction until the case of Tome. The case of Somae came after the case of Tome, and not the other way around.
11. In terms of inconsistencies, the case of Somae also made reference to the case of Tome, stating that “Inconsistencies in evidence (whether within the testimony of a witness or between witnesses) are not relevant at the no case stage. The court must take the prosecution evidence at its highest and that means accepting the evidence most favourable to the prosecution when determining whether an accused has a case to answer[10].
Simple larceny
12. In this case and as earlier established, you are charged with one count of Simple Larceny contrary to section 261 (1) of the Penal Code. Section 261 (1) states the following:
Stealing for which no special punishment is provided under this Code or any other Act for the time being in force is simple larceny and a felony punishable with imprisonment for five years[11].
13. Section 258 (1) of the Penal Code defines theft or stealing as follows:
A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof[12]:
Provided that a person may be guilty of stealing any such stealing thing notwithstanding that he has lawful possession thereof, if, being a bailee or part owner thereof, he fraudulently converts the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner[13].
Evidence by Prosecutions
14. Prosecutions relied on the evidence given by 3 witnesses under oath, the record of interview conducted between you and the investigator, the statement of one Rose Sau tendered through the investigating officer, whom the court excused under section 35 (4) of the Evidence Act, and allowed her statement to be tendered pursuant to section 118 (1) of the Evidence Act. Prosecutions had also tendered 2 statements produced by the investigating officer that relates to the arrest executed on you and the record of interview she conducted with you.
15. Prosecutions suggests through their evidence that you took Wenny Wala’s bag from him when he was sleeping, and stole his SBD$6,000.00.
16. In summary, the evidence given under oath by the Complainant, Wenny Wala (PW1), and Danny Padagy (PW2), and Eva Sanga (PW5) are outlined below.
17. On the 20th of January 2023, Wenny Wala, PW1, recalls that he was at his home at Kaibia, Central Honiara. He had previously withdrawn his remaining contributions with NPF, hence on that day, he said that he had prepared a shopping list and was intending to do shopping later that day. Before leaving his home, he recalls that he counted his money which totals up to SBD$8,000.00. He separated the money by putting SBD$2,000.00 into the back left pocket of his trousers and SBD$6,000.00 into a small red plastic which he said to have put into the front pocket of his small bag/basket. He describes the bag/basket as that which can be belted around the waste.
18. He recalls that the SBD$6,000.00 consists of 6 bundles of SBD$1,000.00 each.
19. He recalls leaving the house at around 3:00 pm on the 20th of January 2023 and walking over to the yellow bamboo bus stop to go down to the Honiara City Council bus stop. Upon reaching the Honiara City Council bus stop, he proceeded further to catch another bus with the intention to go to the National Museum bus stop. At the National Museum bus stop, he stayed there for quite some time, until walking up towards the Honiara Casino at around 5:30 pm. When reaching the Honiara Casino it dawned on him that by then it would be too late to do his shopping. He also recalls that when he reached the Honiara Casino, he saw you sitting in front of a shop next to the Casino selling betel nut and cigarettes. He states that he knows you since you are the daughter of one Michael Haomae and that in terms of genealogy, you are his niece. He also states that you were once a student at a school that he once taught in, back in the village that both of you come from. He also knows that you are married to a person from Reef Islands, whose name is Lency Sau.
20. Wenny Wala (PW1) further stated that when he saw you, he did not speak with you, but instead proceeded into the Casino. He gave evidence that he is well aware of what a casino is and what usually happens inside. Hence when he went into the casino, he proceeded on to play. He recalls that there were different sorts of games, but he opted to use the machine. He used the SBD$2,000.00 that was placed in the back left pocket of his trousers to play with the machine. He continued to play until it was going towards mid-night when he decided to go outside to chew betel nut and to have a smoke.
21. When he came out, he came straight to where you were selling betel nut and cigarettes and bought betel nuts and cigarettes from you. He states that he used part of the money from the SBD$2,000.00 that he also used to play with the machine in the casino. He recalls that he used a SBD$50.00 note to buy the betel nut and cigarettes from you. In total, he took 2 damis and 6 rolls of cigarette which costs about SBD$20.00 since the 1 dami costs SBD$4.00 and a roll of cigarette was SBD$2.00 each.
22. When he was smoking and chewing betel nut, you motioned at him to move closer to you. When he came closer to you, you asked if you can borrow SBD$100.00 from him to pay for your daughter’s basket who was due to attend Saint Joseph’s Tenaru the following week. You told him that you will refund the money from the proceeds of your betel nut and cigarette sales. He gave you the money requested as he thought that it was for a good cause.
23. After giving the money to you, he joked that he would not have anywhere to sleep as it was already past mid-night. You then told him that he could follow you to your house at White River. He then went back into the casino, at which it was going up to 1:00 am. Not long after going back into the casino, a security officer made the announcement that the casino will close shortly. Upon hearing this announcement, he went into the toilet room at the casino and checked his money. He saw that the SBD$6,000.00 placed in the small red plastic was still kept intact and the full amount was still there, however, it was the SBD$2,000.00 placed in the back left pocket of his trousers that had monies missing. He states that part of the SBD$2,000.00 was used when he played with the machine, and part was used to pay for betel nut and cigarette. Hence what was left of this SBD$2,000.00 was only SBD$530.
24. From the toilet, he came straight out of the casino and went and smoked cigarettes outside of the casino and conversed with other men who have come out of the casino as it was closing. He also saw Lency Sau, your husband, coming out of the casino. When Lency Sau came out, you approached Lency and told him that he, Wenny Wala, will follow you guys back to your house at White River. At first Lency thought that your house was not fit to accommodate guests, but you all managed to board a taxi stopped by Lency Sau.
25. In the taxi was Lency Sau, a person from Reef Islands that Wenny Wala has never seen before, yourself and Wenny Wala. After speaking with the other unknown person from Reef Islands, you told Wenny Wala that this person was his in-law, or in pidgin, tabu since Wenny is also married to a woman from Reef Islands. Furthermore, you told Wenny Wala that this person had requested for him to buy him beer, so since you people were heading west towards White River, the taxi pulled over to some place at Tandai after the Tamlan School and bought a plastic of beer there.
26. Upon reaching the place Wenny Wala believes to be your residence, he gave you SBD$100.00 for taxi fare, but the person from Reef islands said that he will pay for the taxi fare as he will continue on in the taxi to go and see his children. He only took 2 cans of beer from the plastic and left the rest, hence the SBD$100.00 was given back to Wenny Wala. You all proceed over a small drain into a leaf hut in front of the main family house. Wenny recalls that you people arrived at the house around 2 in the morning and by then it was now Saturday.
27. In that leaf hut, Wenny Wala and Lency Sau started drinking the remaining cans of beer while you were just going to and fro between the leaf hut and the main house. The two were just slowly drinking until around 5 in the morning. Wenny Wala said you came and drank the last can of beer in the plastic and told them that despite the beer being finished, they should continue telling stories until the morning. Wenny then pulled out SBD$100.00 and gave it to you to go and buy more beers. Wenny said that this money was taken out from his pocket. You then told him that you will look for a taxi to go and buy beer, hence when you came back, Wenny saw a boy from Reef Islands with you that he has never seen before. As the number of people increased from 2 to 4, the beers started to run out quickly as well so Wenny gave another SBD$100.00 to you to go and buy more beers. You further requested money for smokes to which he pulled out SBD$30.00 from his pocket and gave it to you. You proposed that you all should go to look for beers but Wenny refused and remained in the leaf hut with your husband. When the beer arrived, you people continued drinking including the boy from reef Islands.
28. The drinking continued up towards mid-day when Wenny gave another SBD$100.00 to buy more beers and the drinking continued. Another SBD$100.00 was given by Wenny Wala at around 1 pm to buy some more beer, however, by then, Wenny was starting to feel sleepy and so he eventually slept while sitting down on the chair he had been sitting on when you people were drinking. Prior to Wenny falling asleep, he recalled that your daughter Mona was the only one who comes over to you people in the leaf hut and goes back to the house.
29. Wenny recalls waking up at around 9 in the evening and noticed that there were two girls sitting next to the table. One of the girls was your daughter Mona, the other was also a wantok and was more mature than Mona. Her name was Keniseu and was said to just live in the house next to yours. Wenny also came to notice that instead of sleeping on the chair he fell asleep on, he was now on-top of a mat that was placed on the timber, which I believe to be the flooring of the leaf hut. Furthermore, he also noticed that his basket/bag was no longer belted around his waist and that he did not see the bag. He asked your daughter why he was laying on the mat to which she said that he was carried from the chair and placed on the mat. In relation to the whereabouts of the basket, your daughter sated that it was you who took it and gave it to her (daughter) to go and put it in the house as it belonged to Wenny. You were also said to have told your daughter that the bag contains Wenny’s SBD$3,000.00. However, your daughter was afraid to touch the bag upon hearing the amount inside so you went and left the bag on your own.
30. Wenny also asked how the bag was removed as it was belted around his waist and your daughter told him that she saw you removed the bag from him. Wenny then asked where you and Lency Sau were and was told that you people have gone to some place called red door to drink beer. With the idea that his bag was at the house, he felt that it was safe and if the money in his bag was too be removed, it could only be anyone in your house. He then ate some noodles prepared by the neighbours and was told by Keniseu that for the whole afternoon, you people came back and forth in taxis.
31. After eating his noodles, Wenny went to the living room of your main house and slept. He woke up at around 5:00 am the next day that is on Sunday the 22nd of January 2023. He remained where he slept until 6:00 am when he saw your daughter Mona who had also woken up and had come out. He then went out and sat on the chair and asked Mona wher you and Lency were. She told him that you both were still sleeping in the room. By then he was intending to go, hence he asked Mona to go and look for the bag in the house. When Mona returned with the bag, they both sat next to each other while Wenny proceeded into opening the pocket in which the plastic containing the money was inside. When Wenny pulled out the plastic, he felt that it was much lighter compared to before, he then opened the plastic and only found two bundles of SBD$100 and decided to put the plastic of money back into the bag and handed the bag back to Mona. He told Mona to bring the bag back to where she found it and that he was going to wait until you wake up so that he can tell you that some things were missing from the bag. He did not know where exactly in the house Mona had returned the bag to, but only knew that it was returned into your house. By then, it was already around 7:00 am.
32. From there, he went and sat down in the leaf hut until a man that he later came to know as Sidney Sopu came and sat with him. He further states that there is no mention of Sidney’s name in the statement he gave to the police, but he recalls that he did state the name Sidney to the Police Officer he spoke with, whom he believed his name was Rex. After talking with Sidney who was intending to go to a wantok’s house, he proceeded to the White River Police Station by which it was already going up to 10:00am.
34. At the White River Police Station, he reported that things were missing from his bag. The Police had to wait for their vehicle to arrive before going up to your house. Eventually the Police came and got the bag yourself, Lency Sau and your daughter. It was at the station that the police asked if you knew about anything inside the bag that is alleged to be missing, but you said you knew nothing about the money.
35. The bag was then given to Wenny to check the money that was inside. Upon counting the money, he found that one of the bundles only has five SBD$100.00 notes, while the other bundle only had eight SBD$100.00 notes. Hence the total remaining monies were only SBD$1,300.00 in total. He was then told that it was up to him, if he wanted to open a case against you, then they can put you away in custody. Wenny however, gave no answer and instead asked to go and buy some food with part of the money left as he was hungry. He then went to the market stalls at White River O1 and bought some fish and chips. As he was returning to the station he saw you and Lency, and further stated that Lency approached him and asked if he could give you 14 days to allow you to repay the money. You all proceeded back to the station where he told the officers that he will give you 14 days to repay the money, but if there were no repayments then he will officially open a case against you.
36. After 17 days, he found that no money was ever repaid, hence a formal complaint was lodged which led to your arrest and the charge against you.
37. Questions asked in cross examination wanted to depict the fact that you have used up the money on buying beers, as you were very drunk and not being able to control how the money was spent. The questions also aimed to address the fact that no one had seen you actually removing the money from inside the bag, except that you took the bag for strictly safe keeping purposes.
38. The next prosecution witness, was Danny Padagy (PW2). PW2 stated that he joined you people after returning from some place called red door. He was intending to return to his sister’s place at DA Printers when he saw your husband and called out to him and made a joke to him, since he saw you people drinking. He said that he saw you and some old man that he does not know, he then walked over to where you people were and sat down with you people. He further states that it was not long and the beers in the plastic were starting to run out, so he said that you handed him SBD$100.00 that was given by the old man to go and buy more beers. Since the bottle shops were not open, he went to a black market at Rifle Range and bought more beers, SB to be exact. He came back and the drinking continued until the beers were finished and another SBD$100 was given to you by the old man for more beers. PW2 then went to the same location and returned with more beers. He recalled that he was sent for about three times, meaning the money spent was round about SBD$300.00. In total, he recalls that the money he spent on all the runs was SBD$400.00 as the SBD$100.00 were given to him one another.
39. The 4th time he was sent was when PW1 gave money to you for cigarettes. However, PW2 only went and bought the cigarettes from a canteen just next to your house which is owned by some persons from Isabel. He recalls that you people continued sitting and that the sun was coming up. He believed that it was around 10:00am when the old man started to fall asleep. By then, you were still sitting there. He also recalled that the bag was still belted around the old man’s waist or body. You then proposed to lay the old man, whom I take judicial notice to be Wenny Wala (PW1). You then swept the area and laid Wenny Wala down. You then took Wenny Wala’s bag and walked towards the main house which was not far from the leaf hut. He saw you zipping one of the pockets of the bag. As you were walking towards the house, your daughter walked towards you from the house and you stated that you were bringing your uncle’s bag to the house. As explained earlier PW1 states that you are his niece, hence you said that he was your uncle.
40. After bringing the bag to the house, you returned back to where PW2 was and not long after, Lency Sau also came out of the house and joined the group. You people continued on except for Wenny Wala who was already asleep. Having sat down until the afternoon part of that day, you all stopped a taxi and boarded it to the red door mentioned earlier. Some of the beer bought by Wenny Wala have also been taken with you people to red door, hence you people started drinking those beer upon arrival. He started to feel sleepy, hence, he left the red door and proceeded back to DA printer, where he went and slept on the hammock.
41. In cross examination, he answered that he did not know the amount of money already spent as he only joined you people around 6:00 am. He also states that he did not see you taking any money from Wenny Wala’s bag, which he said to have looked similar to the one he was carrying in court that day. From seeing PW2’s bag, it looked something like those used by some bus conductors in the past which is usually belted around a person’s waist. The only difference was that Wenny Wala’s bag was black and PW2’s bag was somewhat green.
42. When you took Wenny Wala’s bag away, he thought that you were taking it away for safe keeping as you said Wenny is your uncle.
43. PW3 was Rose Sau, however, her statement was tendered through Police Constable Eva Sanga. PW3 as previously stated was excused from giving evidence under oath. In her statement, she sates that on the 21st of January 2023 at a time around 3:00 am, she remembers seeing you, Lency Sau and Wenny Wala arriving home in a taxi. You people were said to be drinking beers that were placed in a black plastic. She also stated that around 7:15 am she went to Talon shop to buy her uniform and returned around 9:15 am and saw you, Wenny Wala and two other boys that she does not know their names, still sitting and drinking.
44. Around 11:30 am Wenny Wala fell asleep on the chair he was sitting on. She was asked to go and get a mat and a pillow for Wenny Wala to sleep on but since her father was sleeping in the room, she came out. As she was coming out of the house, she saw you walking towards the house with Wenny Wala’s bag. At that time, she saw that you were trying to put something back into the bag. You then told her to get the bag and hide it as Wenny Wala’s SBD$3,000.00 was inside. However, you later said that you will go and hide it yourself.
45. PW5 only gave evidence in relation to how she obtained PW3’s statement along with your arrest and the record of interview conducted with you.
Circumstantial Evidence
46. Prosecutions has stated in their opening address that their case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. I also agree, as there was no direct eye witness who actually show you removing any money from the Complainant’s bag.
47. The High Court stated in the case of Tome, that “circumstantial evidence is evidence of a basic fact or facts from which the jury is asked to infer a further fact or facts[14]”.
48. The Samoan Supreme Court case of Police v Pio describes circumstantial evidence as follows:
When I speak of circumstantial evidence, I mean generally, evidence from which the fact to be proved can be inferred. Circumstantial evidence, as distinct from direct evidence (such as the evidence of an eye witness), has been defined as ''evidence of minor facts of such a nature that the mind is led, by a process of reasoning, to the conviction that some other fact (the fact to be proved) may be inferred.'' Circumstantial evidence may be as strong as (in fact, it may be stronger than) direct evidence. It may be weak[15].
there is evidence of two, or three, or more independent facts all pointing in the same direction, that may be more reliable than the evidence of one witness, purporting to give direct testimony of what was said or done, who might be mistaken, or who might be forgetful, or who might be attempting to falsify evidence[16].
In everyday life we use circumstantial evidence. We put two and two together to reach decisions. So with circumstantial evidence[17].
When two, or three, or more facts independent of each other are proved and they point in the same direction, the coincidence between them is yet another fact of greater weight to establish an ultimate fact than the two or more independent facts considered separately[18].
49. At this juncture, the courts must also be cautious when considering circumstantial evidence presented against an accused person. This was highlighted by Muria CJ (as he was then) in the case of R v Duddley Pongi, where I quote:
“The prosecution case is substantially based on circumstantial evidence. As such the Court must be very cautious when considering the case as presented against the accused. It is the duty of the Court in such a case to consider all the evidence together at the conclusion of the case, ensuring that it can only draw an inference of guilt from the totality of the facts which are proved beyond reasonable doubt[19]”.
Application
50. Going back to the evidence adduced by PW2, he said that it was you who took the Complainant’s bag from him while he was asleep. Furthermore, he also saw you unzipping one of the pockets in front of the bag. He also saw you walking away with the bag into the house.
51. PW3 states that as she was coming out of the house after being sent to get a mat and a pillow, she saw you walking towards her with the Complainant’s bag and at the same time trying to put something back into the bag. You told her to go and hide the bag in the house, as the Complainant’s SBD$3,000.00 was inside. She did not do what you told her to do since you decided to go and hide the bag on your own.
52. According to PW1, your husband had approached him when he was returning to the Police station on the 22nd of January 2023 and asked him to give 14 days to allow you time to repay the money.
53. The test in this regard is not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
54. At paragraph 40 of the defence submission, Counsel had asked this court to disregard the evidence of PW3 with reference to section 10 of the Constitution on the right to fair trial. Counsel states that since there was no cross examination conducted for PW3, it would be unfair on you. Counsel made further reference to the cases of Mede and Tesinu. I must say that I have had the opportunity to read both cases and wish to state the following, the case of Mede was appealed from the Magistrates court in relation to how the trial leading to Mr Mede’s conviction was carried out. In the Court of Appeal judgement in the case of Mede, the following was highlighted:
The learned Magistrate conducted the entire evidence in chief of the complainant. At no time did the prosecutor ask the complainant any questions. At the conclusion of the evidence in chief the Magistrate said to the prosecutor words to the effect "We don’t need any more questions officer unless there is anything specific". The prosecutor indicated that he did not have any more questions and the evidence in chief was then completed[20].
When the complainant was cross-examined the learned Magistrate decided that all questions would go "through him". The learned Magistrate would not entertain any objection to this approach. As a result the questions asked by Ms. Hemmer in cross-examination were frequently rephrased and thereby changing the effect of the question[21].”
55. According to an affidavit made by a police officer, the learned Magistrate told Counsels that the trial will be conducted quite differently, by that, questions were to be asked through the court as the complainant was only eight to nine years old. This would mean, the questions would be put to the presiding Magistrate, then to the Complainant[22].
56. As for the case of Tesinu, the accused was charged for Rape contrary to section 136 F(1) (a) (b) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. After admitting the police statement of the complainant dated on the 5th of June 2019, who unfortunately has passed away, Mr. Andrew Meioko of counsel for the Crown sought time to finalise the PTC document in that case. When the case resumed, the PTC document was filed and tendered in court. However, at this stage, the defence had indicated their intention to object to the calling of two prosecution witnesses on the basis that their evidence on the issue of fresh complaint would amount to hearsay. This was because the complainant had not stated in her statement dated 5th June 2019 that she in fact told those witnesses about the alleged rape incident[23].
57. In those cases, it was correct and appropriate for the court to highlight the right to a fair hearing on the part of an accused. In Mede, the Magistrate conducted the trial in a way that a reasonable person could have perceived biasness on his part. As judicial officers, we should not be taking sides which could infer to the other party elements of favouritism. Furthermore as judicial officers, it is also our duty to ensure that there is fairness when accepting statements and calling of witnesses, as was in the case of Tesinu, when Justice Bird allowed the objection by defence on calling two witnesses that were not mentioned in the complainant’s statement dated on the 5th of June 2019, prior to her death.
58. When quoting principles, counsels are encouraged to read the whole case to contextualise the circumstances and facts involved and how the principles are applied. I must say, the circumstances in your case, are quite distinct to those in the cases I was referred to by counsel.
59. In my view, what would be unfair is to deny the prosecution from admitting their crucial evidence. I have stated in my oral ruling on the 24th of May 2023, that after excusing PW3 and PW4 under section 35 (4) of the Evidence Act, with due consideration to sections 34 and 35 (1) (2) (3), I referred further to section 118 (1) of the Evidence Act to have the statements tendered through their author, who during the trial was PW5, WPC Eva Sanga.
60. Having said this, I wish to go back and revisit paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of this ruling. As previously stated, the court at this stage must take the prosecution evidence at its highest and that means accepting the evidence most favourable to the prosecution when determining whether an accused has a case to answer. In the paragraphs highlighted, all inferences only point to you, hence, it can only be fair that you answer in you defence. It is with this that I find there is a case to answer on the charge laid against you.
Dated this 1st day of June 2023.
______________
THE COURT
Emily Z Vagibule Pakoa (Mrs)
Magistrate of the first class
[1] Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Solomon Islands.
[2] R v Somae [2005] SBCA 18; [2005] 2 LRC 431 (4 August 2005)
[3] Above n2.
[4] Above n2.
[5] Above n2.
[6] R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
[7] Above n6.
[8] Above n6
[9] Above n6
[10] Above n2
[11] Section 261 (1) of the Penal Code of Solomon Islands
[12] Section 258 (1) of the Penal Code of Solomon Islands
[13] Above, n12
[14] Regina v Tome [2004] SBHC 115; HC-CRC 259 of 2003 (2 April 2008)
[15] Police v Pio [1999] WSSC 50 (12 April 1999)
[16] Above n15.
[17] Above n15
[18] Above n15
[19] R v Duddley Pongi (Unreported Criminal Case No. 40 of 1999)
[20] Regina v Mede [2010] SBCA 4; CA-CRAC 20 of 2009 (26 March 2010)
[21] Above n20
[22] Above n20
[23] R v Tesinu [2021] SBHC 38; HCSI-CRC 548 of 2019 (17 May 2021)
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBMC/2023/2.html